> > I can think of many reasons why bash should not be used as /bin/sh:
>
> I would be glad to make some other strict POSIX-compliant /bin/sh instead of
> bash, but I am afraid we don't have a candidate. I don't think ash is good
> enough for the job. And I don't have enough information about pdksh.
>
> Making our scripts not to use "bashism" is a big problem though.
I think that's the more direct thing... making things that claim to use
/bin/sh (Typical location for the Bourne Shell) plain vanilla bourne shell
compatible, and make anything with extensions use /bin/bash instead.
I think the symlink from /bin/sh to /bin/bash is fine because bash -is- a
superset of regular sh. However, I think that the admin of a system SHOULD
be able to choose whatever shell they want to use for /bin/sh, so long as
it's at least fully bourne shell compatible.
In short, I agree with the sentiment expressed here.
-Kysh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org